Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-11-2012, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

...

Since Jesus died 36CE and Josphehus born 37CE they lived in teh same time period. If he learned about Jesus as a 2 year old, why would it be unreliable or decades "latest"

contemporary as in the same time period.

the time he records his observation about Jesus does not mean it was the time he first learned about him or heard about him.

This is quite speculative. If Jesus were a famous person, or someone known personally to someone known to Josephus, you would have a chain of evidence. But we have no indication that this is true. Josephus does not discuss Christians, or Paul, or any of his other disciples.

pinkvoy · 07-11-2012, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

I've not seen any reasons why the rTF in 2nd century copies would be dismissed as a "fake"

But have you actually looked at the discussion? What problems do you have with Ken Olson's 1999 article in Catholic Biblical Quarterly? There is a summary here or a copy of the article in the Files section of the JesusMysteries yahoo group if you join.

But in any case, you have reversed the burden of proof. The reconstruction is the product of modern scholars revising an obviously faked section of Josephus. Why should you assume that this is even possible?

did you read it?

Quote:

CONCLUSION

The agreements between the version of the _Testimonium_ found in _Antiquities_ 18 and that found in the _Historia Ecclesiastica_ against the version found in the _Demonstratio Evangelica_ show that it was the _Historia's_ version that Christian scribes interpolated into our texts of Josephus. They accepted on Eusebius' authority that the _Antiquities_ ought to contain such a text and "corrected" their texts according to the reading found in the _Historia Ecclesiastica_. The version of the _Testimonium_ found in our texts of the _Antiquities_ is the Eusebian version, and, if there ever was a Josephan version, that fact remains to be demonstrated.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The version of the _Testimonium_ found in our texts of the _Antiquities_ is the Eusebian version, and, if there ever was a Josephan version, that fact remains to be demonstrated.

Does not addressed rTF and obviously finding an early copy would materially falsify it.

pinkvoy · 07-11-2012, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

...

Since Jesus died 36CE and Josphehus born 37CE they lived in teh same time period. If he learned about Jesus as a 2 year old, why would it be unreliable or decades "latest"

contemporary as in the same time period.

the time he records his observation about Jesus does not mean it was the time he first learned about him or heard about him.

This is quite speculative. If Jesus were a famous person, or someone known personally to someone known to Josephus, you would have a chain of evidence. But we have no indication that this is true. Josephus does not discuss Christians, or Paul, or any of his other disciples.

James brother Jesus called Christ,
John the Baptist
Pilate
Herod
tribe of Christians to this day

pinkvoy · 07-11-2012, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But in any case, you have reversed the burden of proof. The reconstruction is the product of modern scholars revising an obviously faked section of Josephus. Why should you assume that this is even possible?

Quote:

Arguments that the Testimonium is Authentic

There are also arguments of various quality that aim to show that the Testimonium Flavianum is partially authentic.
<snip copy and paste from http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...html#authentic >

it is far from "obvious" that it is an entirely fake section.

Toto · 07-11-2012, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

..

Does not addressed rTF and obviously finding an early copy would materially falsify it.

It does implicitly address the reconstructed TF - it rules it out.

Obviously if you imagine that you can find some evidence that are right, you can convince yourself that you are right.

Toto · 07-11-2012, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is quite speculative. If Jesus were a famous person, or someone known personally to someone known to Josephus, you would have a chain of evidence. But we have no indication that this is true. Josephus does not discuss Christians, or Paul, or any of his other disciples.

James brother Jesus called Christ,

another obvious interpolation

Quote:

John the Baptist

Josephus does not connect John to Jesus

Quote:

Pilate
Herod

Historical figures that the gospel writers learned about from Josephus

Quote:

tribe of Christians to this day

A typically Eusebian phrase - one of the reasons to think that Josephus never wrote this section.

Josephus does not discuss these Christians at all, outside of the TF.

pinkvoy · 07-11-2012, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

..

Does not addressed rTF and obviously finding an early copy would materially falsify it.

It does implicitly address the reconstructed TF - it rules it out.

Obviously if you imagine that you can find some evidence that are right, you can convince yourself that you are right.

YOu have 1 scholar who suggests the TF is spurious, but I've listed several who think the TF is, in part, genuine. It's hardly historical research to crow about 1 scholar who happens to side with your view and convince yoursel you are right and disregard the work of many scholars who think TF is partially genuine.

Quote:

I am going to argue here that the _Testimonium Flavianum_, the passage about Jesus found in all of our surviving manuscripts of Josephus' _Antiquities of the Jews_ (18.63-64) is in fact the work of Eusebius of Caesarea. Josephus either said nothing about Jesus at this point in his text, or what he said is so completely overwritten by Eusebius that no authentic Josephan substratum of the _Testimonium_ can be recovered. As it is the nearly unanimous verdict of modern scholarship that the _Testimonium_ is at least partially a Christian interpolation, I do not intend to waste time establishing that fact. Instead, I will examine the argument most commonly made in favor of the partial authenticity of the _Testimonium_, (i.e., that it contains Josephan language and non-Christian content) and try to show that the data are better explained on the theory that Eusebius is the author of the entire text.

His argument hinges on "I am going to argue here that the _Testimonium Flavianum_, the passage about Jesus found in all of our surviving manuscripts of Josephus' _Antiquities of the Jews_ (18.63-64) is in fact the work of Eusebius of Caesarea. "

the passage about Jesus found in all of our surviving manuscripts of Josephus' _Antiquities of the Jews_

A surviving copy with a copy of TF that matches the proposed rTF would obviously invalidate the condition of this paper.

Toto · 07-11-2012, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But in any case, you have reversed the burden of proof. The reconstruction is the product of modern scholars revising an obviously faked section of Josephus. Why should you assume that this is even possible?

Quote:

Arguments that the Testimonium is Authentic

There are also arguments of various quality that aim to show that the Testimonium Flavianum is partially authentic.
<snip copy and paste from http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...html#authentic >

it is far from "obvious" that it is an entirely fake section.

Don't just repeat what someone else wrote, and don't just pick up one side of the argument.

aa5874 · 07-11-2012, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

Since Jesus died 36CE and Josphehus born 37CE they lived in teh same time period. If he learned about Jesus as a 2 year old, why would it be unreliable or decades "latest"...

Let me addressed your fallacies!!

It is NOT a fact that Jesus died 36 CE.

You very well know that the very existence of Jesus is uncertain and is presently being challenged and that based on gLuke Jesus died within ONE Passover of the 15th year of Tiberius.

The 15th year of Tiberius is c 29-30 CE so based on gLuke Jesus died around c 29-31 CE.

Now, you have PRESUMED from SILENCE that Josephus at 2 years of age may have heard of Jesus, if he did live, when you very well know that Josephus may have heard about Jesus, if he did live, at c 93 CE when he wrote Antiquities of the Jews.

Your fallacious arguments from Silence are of very litte value and hopeless.

Toto · 07-11-2012, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It does implicitly address the reconstructed TF - it rules it out.

Obviously if you imagine that you can find some evidence that are right, you can convince yourself that you are right.

YOu have 1 scholar who suggests the TF is spurious, but I've listed several who think the TF is, in part, genuine. It's hardly historical research to crow about 1 scholar who happens to side with your view and convince yoursel you are right and disregard the work of many scholars who think TF is partially genuine.

This is not a popularity contest. Olson has spent much more time on this section that many of the others.

You have to look at the actual arguments.

Quote:

I am going to argue here that the _Testimonium Flavianum_, the passage about Jesus found in all of our surviving manuscripts of Josephus' _Antiquities of the Jews_ (18.63-64) is in fact the work of Eusebius of Caesarea. Josephus either said nothing about Jesus at this point in his text, or what he said is so completely overwritten by Eusebius that no authentic Josephan substratum of the _Testimonium_ can be recovered. As it is the nearly unanimous verdict of modern scholarship that the _Testimonium_ is at least partially a Christian interpolation, I do not intend to waste time establishing that fact. Instead, I will examine the argument most commonly made in favor of the partial authenticity of the _Testimonium_, (i.e., that it contains Josephan language and non-Christian content) and try to show that the data are better explained on the theory that Eusebius is the author of the entire text.

His argument hinges on "I am going to argue here that the _Testimonium Flavianum_, the passage about Jesus found in all of our surviving manuscripts of Josephus' _Antiquities of the Jews_ (18.63-64) is in fact the work of Eusebius of Caesarea. "

No, that is his conclusion.

Quote:

the passage about Jesus found in all of our surviving manuscripts of Josephus' _Antiquities of the Jews_

A surviving copy with a copy of TF that matches the proposed rTF would obviously invalidate the condition of this paper.

Only if it were the original copy. But you can imagine anything you want - that's not an argument.

View Poll Results: a question for Christ mythicist, suppose an early copy of Josephus was found
I am a Christ mythicist, this version of Testimonium would falsify my beliefs	0	0%
I am a Christ mythicist, I would still believe in Jesus myth w/this version of Testimonium	4	57.14%
I believe in a historical Jesus, this version of Testimonium would support it.	3	42.86%
Voters: 7. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.